Would you shoot an attacker with a tazer?

Recon7 · December 5, 2008, 08:35 PM

I have been wondering what to do if somebody attacks with a "less lethal" weapon. I don't know how I could find myself in this situation, but for the sake of argument what if I drop my tazer of a purse snatcher tries to use pepper spray against me. Couldn't you argue that an attacker could inflict "severe bodily harm" to you after they attack with a less lethal weapon? or maybe they could take your gun and finish you or shoot others.

I am sure some here will see this as another unlikely scenario, but I am really more interested in the law and tactics involved with using lethal force against less lethal. Obviously, you have no leg to stand on if you started the conflict, but would there be situations where such a response is justified?

MeekAndMild · December 5, 2008, 08:38 PM

I would think the prudent answer would depend on the question of to what extent your state honors the rights of self protection versus the fictional duty to retreat. There are some states where you'd fare very poorly, even though a Tazer is just as dangerous if you're shot while running away.

JollyRoger · December 5, 2008, 08:41 PM

From a LEO perspective, any weapon a bad guy can use to disable you and take your weapon puts you in fear of death or great bodily harm. So does an active attempt by an unarmed bad guy to disarm you. Deadly force is therefore permitted.

I can't see why this would apply differently to a CCW.

JollyRoger · December 5, 2008, 08:45 PM

Quote:

From a LEO perspective, any weapon a bad guy can use to disable you and take your weapon puts you in fear of death or great bodily harm.

Maybe I need to modify that a little. You always have to have an articulable fear: the fact some guy has a can of spray or a taser in his possession doesn't do it unless he is threatening with it, of course.

Chui · December 5, 2008, 08:50 PM

I've wondered this as well. I don't think that there is a single "right" answer. I'd certainly be leaning towards using deadly force as you don't know if you you'll have a heart attack from being hit with one. They are termed "less lethal" but they most certainly aren't "non-lethal".

Just my two cents.

Recon7 · December 5, 2008, 08:50 PM

My thoughts too, I just think it would be hard to justify yourself. Especially if you are not a cop. If you are carrying concealed it would be tough to say the individual was trying to disarm you. I think you would be left saying the guy MAY stomp the heck out of you after you are taken down by the tazer or spray. If a person has a distinct advantage over you (blunt instrument, friends, man vs woman) you are sometimes allowed lethal force, what about using lethal force to prevent that situation. Like to prevent being blinded by OC before a fistfight.

KLRANGL · December 5, 2008, 09:38 PM

Attempted abduction?

Unless someone can think of a compelling reason not to, im fairly sure I'd shoot someone coming at me with a tazer, situation dependent of course.

troy_mclure · December 5, 2008, 09:54 PM

the correct answer is of course "i was in fear of my life", nomatter what they attack you with.

doh_312 · December 6, 2008, 02:16 PM

troy mclure says it all. If you're in fear of your life, it just may be time to put that trigger finger to work. A taser takes me out of the fight, in a very bad way, unless it's a LEO.(Whom you shouldn't be a problem person with in the first place) Taser or pepper spray renders me unable to defend myself and at the mercy of the assailant. I'd do my best to prevent that from happening.

Erik · December 6, 2008, 09:08 PM

"I have been wondering what to do if somebody attacks with a "less lethal" weapon."

Appropriately defend yourself as, to include the use of lethal force.

"I can't see why this would apply differently to a CCW."

Neither can I.

mav88 · December 6, 2008, 11:35 PM

yes..i would if i felt it would stop the attacker from doing harm..also depends on how many volts etc. If it was a 14 year old teen trying to mug me with a knife or something..i would just taze him..and not shoot him..thats just me though of course..compared to say..a 6'5 300 pounder ex convict who has experience holding a shank coming after me with a knife..then its simple..i would reach for the revolver instead...but of course i dont everrr want a scenario happen like that...

Recon7 · December 7, 2008, 12:00 AM

I am sorry, but I can only fit so many words into a thread title. a more clear title might have been:

If you have a gun and somebody attacks you with a tazer, would you shoot them with a gun?

Surprisingly this issue is not as controversial as I thought.

Rich Miranda · December 7, 2008, 12:35 AM

Quote:

1) If you have a gun and somebody attacks you with a tazer, would you shoot them with a gun?

2) Surprisingly this issue is not as controversial as I thought.

1) A loud, and resounding 'Yes', and the 3 COM shots would probably be long-gone before I even began to consider whether it was justified. Maybe I'd go to prison, but my gut would be to defend my life.

A taser probably won't kill you but it will disable you much the same way a baseball bat to the head might. Ask yourself this: "Would I shoot someone who was going to hit me in the head with a baseball bat?" I know I would.

2) That's because the use of a taser is a very clear act of aggression, IMO. Unless you're resisting being arrested by a police officer and get tased, I doubt the taser-er (sorry) has good intentions.

FireForged · December 7, 2008, 12:59 AM

I am not really scared of a butter knife but then again, it would really matter who has the butter knife.

Nnobby45 · December 7, 2008, 01:13 AM

You're asking a question that 10 different prosecutors would have 10 differrent perspectives on.

Every Police officer has been hit with pepper spray and had to demonstrate that he/she can still function afterwards. Can you and your attorney convince a jury that you feared you'd be helpless afterwards and subject to serious bodily injury? Will the jury see it your way when you you used deadly force against non lethal force?

Would a tazer attack be better justification for the use of deadly force because you'd likely be completely incapacitated? A lawyer could better answer these questions.

Have you tried to look up any case law or do research on the subject?

csmsss · December 7, 2008, 01:58 AM

Here's how I think of this situation. To what end would someone approach me with a taser and attempt to strike me with it? The primary reason for using a taser against another person is to incapacitate and render him/her helpless. Why would an assailant wish to make me helpless? Is there any benign reason for so doing? Is there any reason to assume he/she intends to leave it at that? No, of course not - the entire idea behind gaining control over another person is to go beyond the incapacitation. Whether it be robbery, further physical assault, rape or murder, in all cases I would be justified in using deadly force to prevent it.

In short, I feel it would be my obligation to treat anyone wielding a taser against me (law enforcement excepted, of course) as assaulting me with a deadly weapon and responding accordingly.

I think this is an interesting discussion, but it's probably all fairly academic as the taser is a particularly ineffective device except in very narrowly controlled circumstances. Further, the goal of a criminal assault (either to instill fear in the victim or inflict pain or death) is better served by other weapons.

WC145 · December 7, 2008, 11:12 AM

I'm a LEO, I've had the opportunity to "ride the lightening" and I know how incapacitating it is. Yes, the shock only lasts 5 seconds but LE tasers can shock again and again just by pulling the trigger, I don't know about the civilian models. And, even though the shock is brief, it is very intense and it takes a moment to recover enough to act afterwards. So, for me, if someone was threatening me with a taser I would not hesitate to shoot them first because I would be unable to defend myself or protect my weapon if they did.

One thing you have to keep in mind the range of a taser is only about 15 feet. If you're being threatened from across the parking lot and shoot the bad guy you're going to have some explaining to do. Of course if you are within range that's a completely different ball game.

csmsss · December 7, 2008, 11:16 AM

Quote:

One thing you have to keep in mind the range of a taser is only about 15 feet. If you're being threatened from across the parking lot and shoot the bad guy you're going to have some explaining to do. Of course if you are within range that's a completely different ball game.

Huh? I'm supposed to wait until someone meaning to do me harm gets within his effective range before I can legally respond? I'm glad you're not an LEO where I live.

Hondo11 · December 7, 2008, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Huh? I'm supposed to wait until someone meaning to do me harm gets within his effective range before I can legally respond? I'm glad you're not an LEO where I live.

Nevermind

WC145 · December 7, 2008, 06:06 PM

Quote:

Huh? I'm supposed to wait until someone meaning to do me harm gets within his effective range before I can legally respond? I'm glad you're not an LEO where I live.

Uh, yeah. If the guy you shoot is not in a position to cause death or grievous bodily injury to you or another you're going to have a tough time defending your actions in court. That is the basic lethal force standard, I don't care where you live.

Sportdog · December 7, 2008, 06:51 PM

I find it very interesting that the way of these type threads go. If you are in law enforcement and someone who even dares to move wrong, it is OK and a "good shoot" to drop him on the spot. When a civilian is being assaulted or may be threatened with death, he is supposed to properly assess the intentions of the BG before he can respond with lethel force. I know that I am oversimplifying but the crux of the respondent attitudes bears me out.

GunRus · December 7, 2008, 06:58 PM

Use the "fear" test. Forget the law for a second. Would you feel in fear of your life? I would. From a practical viewpoint, the question is answered. The law is a secondary issue IMO.

csmsss · December 7, 2008, 07:28 PM

Quote:

Uh, yeah. If the guy you shoot is not in a position to cause death or grievous bodily injury to you or another you're going to have a tough time defending your actions in court. That is the basic lethal force standard, I don't care where you live.

I'm curious - is it your position that the average citizen should know, offhand and in a situation of maximum stress and fear, what the effective range of the tazer is? And, in that moment of extremity, accurately judge the distance between himself and the threat before deciding whether he can defend himself or not? Please.

Borch · December 7, 2008, 07:35 PM

Quote:

if someone was threatening me with a taser I would not hesitate to shoot them first because I would be unable to defend myself or protect my weapon if they did.

That says it all right there. You could even substitute pepper spray for taser. Having been both sprayed with a very healthy dose of pepper spray (Aerko's Freeze +P) and tased for 5 seconds on 3 different occasions (Taser X26 LE model each time). I can easily justify shooting someone threatening me with either weapon. I can do this because I know from experience that if either one is used on me I will be incapacitated to the point where I would be unable to defend myself from further more serious injury or death.

I can say in all honesty that if I am ever seriously threatened by someone with a "less lethal" weapon it just became a deadly force day.

JohnH1963 · December 7, 2008, 07:40 PM

In the scenario of police officer vs. random guy with the tazer, you have to be one dumb criminal to bring a tazer to a gunfight...

December 5, 2008, 08:35 PM	#1
Recon7 Senior Member Join Date: December 10, 2005 Posts: 707	Would you shoot an attacker with a tazer? I have been wondering what to do if somebody attacks with a "less lethal" weapon. I don't know how I could find myself in this situation, but for the sake of argument what if I drop my tazer of a purse snatcher tries to use pepper spray against me. Couldn't you argue that an attacker could inflict "severe bodily harm" to you after they attack with a less lethal weapon? or maybe they could take your gun and finish you or shoot others. I am sure some here will see this as another unlikely scenario, but I am really more interested in the law and tactics involved with using lethal force against less lethal. Obviously, you have no leg to stand on if you started the conflict, but would there be situations where such a response is justified?

December 5, 2008, 08:38 PM	#2
MeekAndMild Senior Member Join Date: August 2, 2001 Posts: 4,988	I would think the prudent answer would depend on the question of to what extent your state honors the rights of self protection versus the fictional duty to retreat. There are some states where you'd fare very poorly, even though a Tazer is just as dangerous if you're shot while running away. __________________ In a few years when the dust finally clears and people start counting their change there is a pretty good chance that President Obama may become known as The Great Absquatulator. You heard it first here on TFL.

December 5, 2008, 08:50 PM	#5
Chui Senior Member Join Date: June 28, 2004 Posts: 1,784	I've wondered this as well. I don't think that there is a single "right" answer. I'd certainly be leaning towards using deadly force as you don't know if you you'll have a heart attack from being hit with one. They are termed "less lethal" but they most certainly aren't "non-lethal". Just my two cents. __________________ "Necessity is the plea of every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants, it is the creed of slaves." ~ William Pitt, 1783

December 5, 2008, 09:38 PM	#7
KLRANGL Senior Member Join Date: September 9, 2008 Location: Fredericksburg, VA Posts: 958	Attempted abduction? Unless someone can think of a compelling reason not to, im fairly sure I'd shoot someone coming at me with a tazer, situation dependent of course. __________________ And it's Killer Angel... as in the book

December 5, 2008, 09:54 PM	#8
troy_mclure Senior Member Join Date: November 17, 2008 Location: gulf of mexico Posts: 2,716	the correct answer is of course "i was in fear of my life", nomatter what they attack you with. __________________ There is only one tactical principle which is not subject to change. It is to use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wound, death, and destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of time."

December 5, 2008, 08:41 PM	#3
JollyRoger Senior Member Join Date: April 24, 2005 Posts: 172	From a LEO perspective, any weapon a bad guy can use to disable you and take your weapon puts you in fear of death or great bodily harm. So does an active attempt by an unarmed bad guy to disarm you. Deadly force is therefore permitted. I can't see why this would apply differently to a CCW.

December 6, 2008, 02:16 PM	#9
doh_312 Senior Member Join Date: October 31, 2008 Posts: 312	troy mclure says it all. If you're in fear of your life, it just may be time to put that trigger finger to work. A taser takes me out of the fight, in a very bad way, unless it's a LEO.(Whom you shouldn't be a problem person with in the first place) Taser or pepper spray renders me unable to defend myself and at the mercy of the assailant. I'd do my best to prevent that from happening.

December 6, 2008, 09:08 PM	#10
Erik Senior Member Join Date: December 24, 1999 Location: America Posts: 3,479	"I have been wondering what to do if somebody attacks with a "less lethal" weapon." Appropriately defend yourself as, to include the use of lethal force. "I can't see why this would apply differently to a CCW." Neither can I. __________________ Meriam Webster's: Main Entry: ci·vil·ian Pronunciation: \sə-ˈvil-yən also -ˈvi-yən\, Function: noun, Date: 14th century, 1: a specialist in Roman or modern civil law, 2 a: one not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force b: outsider 1, — civilian adjective

December 6, 2008, 11:35 PM	#11
mav88 Senior Member Join Date: October 11, 2008 Posts: 120	yes..i would if i felt it would stop the attacker from doing harm..also depends on how many volts etc. If it was a 14 year old teen trying to mug me with a knife or something..i would just taze him..and not shoot him..thats just me though of course..compared to say..a 6'5 300 pounder ex convict who has experience holding a shank coming after me with a knife..then its simple..i would reach for the revolver instead...but of course i dont everrr want a scenario happen like that...

December 7, 2008, 12:00 AM	#12
Recon7 Senior Member Join Date: December 10, 2005 Posts: 707	I am sorry, but I can only fit so many words into a thread title. a more clear title might have been: If you have a gun and somebody attacks you with a tazer, would you shoot them with a gun? Surprisingly this issue is not as controversial as I thought.

December 7, 2008, 12:59 AM	#14
FireForged Senior Member Join Date: November 4, 1999 Location: Rebel South USA Posts: 2,074	I am not really scared of a butter knife but then again, it would really matter who has the butter knife. __________________ Life is a web woven by necessity and chance...

December 7, 2008, 01:13 AM	#15
Nnobby45 Senior Member Join Date: November 20, 2004 Posts: 3,150	You're asking a question that 10 different prosecutors would have 10 differrent perspectives on. Every Police officer has been hit with pepper spray and had to demonstrate that he/she can still function afterwards. Can you and your attorney convince a jury that you feared you'd be helpless afterwards and subject to serious bodily injury? Will the jury see it your way when you you used deadly force against non lethal force? Would a tazer attack be better justification for the use of deadly force because you'd likely be completely incapacitated? A lawyer could better answer these questions. Have you tried to look up any case law or do research on the subject?

December 7, 2008, 01:58 AM	#16
csmsss Senior Member Join Date: October 24, 2008 Location: Orange, TX Posts: 3,078	Here's how I think of this situation. To what end would someone approach me with a taser and attempt to strike me with it? The primary reason for using a taser against another person is to incapacitate and render him/her helpless. Why would an assailant wish to make me helpless? Is there any benign reason for so doing? Is there any reason to assume he/she intends to leave it at that? No, of course not - the entire idea behind gaining control over another person is to go beyond the incapacitation. Whether it be robbery, further physical assault, rape or murder, in all cases I would be justified in using deadly force to prevent it. In short, I feel it would be my obligation to treat anyone wielding a taser against me (law enforcement excepted, of course) as assaulting me with a deadly weapon and responding accordingly. I think this is an interesting discussion, but it's probably all fairly academic as the taser is a particularly ineffective device except in very narrowly controlled circumstances. Further, the goal of a criminal assault (either to instill fear in the victim or inflict pain or death) is better served by other weapons.

December 7, 2008, 11:12 AM	#17
WC145 Senior Member Join Date: October 18, 2008 Location: Downeast Maine Posts: 1,836	I'm a LEO, I've had the opportunity to "ride the lightening" and I know how incapacitating it is. Yes, the shock only lasts 5 seconds but LE tasers can shock again and again just by pulling the trigger, I don't know about the civilian models. And, even though the shock is brief, it is very intense and it takes a moment to recover enough to act afterwards. So, for me, if someone was threatening me with a taser I would not hesitate to shoot them first because I would be unable to defend myself or protect my weapon if they did. One thing you have to keep in mind the range of a taser is only about 15 feet. If you're being threatened from across the parking lot and shoot the bad guy you're going to have some explaining to do. Of course if you are within range that's a completely different ball game.

December 7, 2008, 06:51 PM	#21
Sportdog Junior member Join Date: February 28, 2006 Location: Southwestern Michigan Posts: 369	Police/Civilian I find it very interesting that the way of these type threads go. If you are in law enforcement and someone who even dares to move wrong, it is OK and a "good shoot" to drop him on the spot. When a civilian is being assaulted or may be threatened with death, he is supposed to properly assess the intentions of the BG before he can respond with lethel force. I know that I am oversimplifying but the crux of the respondent attitudes bears me out.

December 7, 2008, 06:58 PM	#22
GunRus Member Join Date: September 28, 2008 Posts: 61	Use the "fear" test. Forget the law for a second. Would you feel in fear of your life? I would. From a practical viewpoint, the question is answered. The law is a secondary issue IMO.

December 7, 2008, 07:40 PM	#25
JohnH1963 Junior member Join Date: October 22, 2008 Posts: 416	In the scenario of police officer vs. random guy with the tazer, you have to be one dumb criminal to bring a tazer to a gunfight...